The State of FY 24 Appropriations: Four Answers to Not-So-Easy Questions
Q: Why should Congress finish FY 24 appropriations as soon as possible?
A: It’s been a long time since Congress passed all of the appropriations bills by September 30 (the end of the federal fiscal year). So, “regular order appropriations” is probably not realistic. https://www.strengthenfda.org/friday-updates-list/qampa-on-senate-appropriations-markup
However, sooner is much better for the effectiveness and orderliness of government spending. When FDA is funded on a Continuing Resolution on October 1, it affects personnel and program planning and delays timely spending. At the Senate Appropriations Committee markup, Senator Manchin quantified this, saying it will cost DOD about $3 to $4 billion dollars if it is funded by CR on October 1 rather than an enacted bill.
Global consequences of funding delays were also discussed at the Senate Appropriations Committee markup. Senators said things like: our allies and bondholders already see this as Debt Limit 2.0. One Senator suggested that Russia and China were watching closely, rooting for another impasse like the debt limit debate. Another observation made at the markup: an impasse could lead to a downgrading of the US government credit rating, which will cost the government and consumers billions of dollars.
Q: What are the barriers to Congress finishing the FY 24 process before the end of the calendar year?
A: There are a lot of reasons an impasse could occur. Perhaps the most important is the divide over total federal spending. The White House and much of the Senate thought the Fiscal Responsibility Act (the Biden-McCarthy budget compromise) set levels that all sides could reluctantly live with. Then House Republicans declared the negotiated numbers as ceilings and moved forward on funding bills set significantly below the negotiated level.
At least some House Republicans think that even deeper cuts are needed. Meanwhile, during the Senate markup, a number of Members (from both parties) talked about the eventual need to spend more than the FRA ceilings.
There is already talk of a possible shutdown on October 1, and House leadership is allegedly thinking about the early passage of a Continuing Resolution for FY 24 to take a shutdown off the table.
Q: Is an FY 24 spending impasse avoidable?
A: No one knows what is going to happen. Much of what will matter–proposals, negotiations, procedural maneuvering, etc.--hasn’t occurred yet.
So we are left to our imagination as to whether an impasse can be avoided. One possibility would be a bipartisan Senate deal. Senators repeatedly referenced the FRA as “the Biden-McCarthy deal.” They feel no ownership and are concerned about cuts to domestic programs and restraints on spending on defense and homeland security.
At a soundbite level, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) offered a possible basis for Senate Republicans to develop their own position relative to House calls for more cuts. At the markup, he pointed out that 85% of federal spending is untouched by the FRA. Fiscal restraint, he pointed out, is not achieved by having a comparatively small set of programs bear the brunt of cutbacks.
I have no idea what will happen, and there are easily a hundred just-as-unlikely ways that FY 24 government funding will occur. My point is that things seem impossible now, yet something will eventually happen.
Q: What is the impact on FDA of these larger appropriations and spending issues?
A: We explained macro versus micro budgetary considerations (here) and applied them to FDA in The Budget Deal - First Impressions from an FDA Perspective.
Our conclusion was that macro-budgetary decisions (e.g. budget caps) limit but do not determine micro-budgetary decisions (how much money FDA receives).
It is the Alliance’s job to continue its advocacy for the preservation and growth of FDA funding, regardless of the macro limitations. We continue to deliver our messages about the importance of FDA and the dangers and risks of an underfunded agency. Our key themes are:
FDA delivers a core government service.
FDA’s actions are consequential and visible.
FDA needs more resources to fulfill its expanding mission and growing responsibilities.
Underfunding FDA is a threat to public health and commerce.
What else can FDA stakeholders do? Support the Alliance for a Stronger FDA! It can only continue its work if the FDA stakeholder community supports its aims and contributes to the cost.
For more information about membership, please contact Alliance Executive Director Steven Grossman.
Editorial Note:
The Analysis and Commentary section is written by Steven Grossman, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Stronger FDA.